Earlier this month, The Interceptreported that the U.S. government secretly labeled a prominent Al Jazeera journalist a member of Al Qaeda and placed him on a terror watch list.

The basis for the designation was unclear, but the reporter, Islamabad bureau chief Ahmad Zaidan, denies ever having been a member of the group. Reached last week in Doha, Qatar — where the state-funded Al Jazeera network is based — Zaidan spoke to The Intercept about the reaction to his work and the implications of being tracked by the U.S. government. “To monitor and bug journalists is absolutely immoral and unethical,” he said.

Zaidan was known for interviewing senior Al Qaeda figures, including Osama bin Laden, and he covered the wedding of bin Laden’s son in 2001. If it was those contacts that caused U.S. suspicions, Zaidan says, that runs counter to the purpose of journalism.

“Our job as journalists is to reach out to everybody. We are some sort of go-between in cases where the two parties are not talking to each other,” Zaidan said. “I was thinking that when I was interviewing bin Laden and interviewing these militants, that maybe at least [they can] hear each other, and maybe it can help humanity to reach some sort of middle way.”

Zaidan also sees discrimination behind the surveillance. “If Peter Bergen is meeting Osama bin Laden, or Robert Fisk is meeting Osama bin Laden, no problem,” he said. “But if a non-Westerner is meeting some wanted people, he should be doubted?”

Zaidan’s picture and watch list number appear in a 2012 National Security Agency presentation, which shows that analysts tracked his cell phone contacts and location data — or metadata — as part of a program that looked for people who moved like Al Qaeda couriers. The presentation and other NSA documents revealed that the U.S. was obtaining bulk call data records from Pakistani telecoms, and analyzing the metadata of tens of millions of Pakistani cell phones.

“Faisalabad, Lahore — these main cities are the residence of millions and millions of people,” Zaidan said. “They are following and surveilling every one of us. Who has made them the god of this globe?”

Zaidan says he has had good relations with the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan and has not had run-ins with U.S. authorities.

“I did not hide myself. Whenever I made an interview, I published it. If you have any objection to me, I am living in Islamabad, you can come ask for me anytime,” he said.

He noted that the United States is not the only country to have labeled him as Al Qaeda. Zaidan, who is Syrian, returned to his country for the first time in almost 35 years in early 2012, after the uprising began against President Bashar al-Assad. Zaidan reported from inside a stronghold of the Free Syrian Army, and soon after, he says Syrian state television aired a report claiming that he was a member of Al Qaeda and had been sent to Syria by the group’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The allegations make him fear for his security. “If you are Al Qaeda, it means they can eliminate you. And I am afraid if somebody else might do something against me and he will put the blame on America now,” Zaidan said.

But when I asked if he regretted The Intercept publishing the story, Zaidan said: “My take, as a journalist, is that you have done your job. I can’t say, ‘Ok, if I have some information about Osama bin Laden, I have to publish it, but if you have something against Ahmad Zaidan or Al Jazeera, you should not publish it.’”

“This is the right of our audience,” he said. “We should not keep our audience in the dark otherwise we are like, in fact, the National Security Agency.”

Photo:Anjum Naveed/AP

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us

Hmm…might have accidentally contradicted myself there at: “Zaidan is no more guilty of a crime than the corporate mainstream journalists that advocated for the 2003 Iraq war, and probably much less so.” I don’t think those journalists that advocated for the 2003 Iraq war should be charged with any crime, but what they did was an egregious failing of journalism and journalism ethics on their part. Zaidan on the other hand is acting more independently, which is what any journalist should strive for, but so few pull off these days (among the few that also pull it off are the journalists here at The Intercept, and Democracy Now!)

““I was thinking that when I was interviewing bin Laden and interviewing these militants, that maybe at least [they can] hear each other, and maybe it can help humanity to reach some sort of middle way.””

What an idiot. Yeah, there is a middle way between civilization and Islamofascist butchery, and you and your THE//JIHADI//FELLOW//TRAVELER comrades-in.-arms will make it happen.

““To monitor and bug journalists is absolutely immoral and unethical,” he said.”

No, it is common sense. Especially jihadi fellow travelers.

““If Peter Bergen is meeting Osama bin Laden, or Robert Fisk is meeting Osama bin Laden, no problem,” he said. “But if a non-Westerner is meeting some wanted people, he should be doubted?””

He’s got a point there. I truly hope the security services are monitoring the Western jihadi fellow travelers too – the true enemy within of our democracy – like Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Hussain. It would be insane not to.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Does that ring a bell in your head? That’s the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the bedrock of “our democracy”. Let’s repeat, CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW…ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS. And I think given that people from other countries are human beings as well (should be obvious to everyone with common sense and decent morality), that we should extend such civil rights and liberties to them as well. Zaidan is no more guilty of a crime than the corporate mainstream journalists that advocated for the 2003 Iraq war, and probably much less so. And that goes for Scahill and the other journalists that you refer to as “jihadist fellow travelers” as well. Journalism is not a crime. Deal with it.

If you look at Murtaza Hussein’s recent piece on the Boston Bombings, you’ll find “Louise” repeatedly using the terms “jihad” and “jihadi”, concepts that Louise is unable and unwilling to define when asked. Louise shows no concern for or grasp of the basic facts or substantive questions about the case. Louise derives satisfaction that a Muslim is going to be killed. Freedom, justice, truth, human life are of no consequence to her. The Injun’s been bagged. They caught the Nigger. There are no good gooks. The mob has returned a verdict of guilty, so don’t waste Louise’s time. Get on with it. Save her an ear or a finger as a souvenir.

I share your opinion of Islamofascism — nonetheless, the journalist’s job is worth doing. The fallacy you embrace is that it is harmless to do censorship as long as you censor what is wrong. To the contrary, when you censor what is wrong, you make your own position unfalsifiable, and if it is not falsifiable it cannot be proved to be true. There is no cause – not even Islamofascism – that cannot be ennobled by censorship, its proponents turned into martyrs, its hoary old horse chestnuts turned into “secret truth” that people will sooner believe than a government edict not to talk about the subject. Faith in the intrinsic ability of truth to defend itself is the essence of our civilization, or what remains of it.

I don’t deny that Islamic organizations hearing each others’ nonsense makes me nervous – who knows what they could do. I don’t deny that I see where the impulse to horn into every private conversation to see what plots are being hatched comes from. But—- it is a poisoned bait. You will never accomplish nearly as much by killing people who document or say what you don’t like as you would with honest discussion and a comparable amount of honest work.